AWF vs IVV
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV delivered stronger 1-year returns. AWF offers more diversification with 707 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | AWF | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.00% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $969M | $865.2B | |
| Dividend Yield | 6.92% | 1.09% | |
| Holdings | 1,273 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | -1.03% | +13.72% | |
| 1Y Return | -2.56% | +21.64% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +8.42% | +21.55% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.62% | +13.27% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.2% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -60.0% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | AllianceBernstein L.P. | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity | |
| Inception | Jul 28, 1993 | May 15, 2000 |
AWF vs IVV Performance
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund (AWF) is a ETF from AllianceBernstein L.P. and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year AWF returned -2.56% while IVV returned +21.64%. Year to date, AWF is down 1.03% versus a gain of 13.72% for IVV.
Over three years, AWF compounded at +8.42% per year against +21.55% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +3.62% and +13.27% respectively. Across the full 26-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +7.04% annualized vs +0.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
AWF has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.2% compared with 15.1% for IVV. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -60.0% for AWF and -56.5% for IVV. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.60. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
AWF charges 1.00% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $100 vs $3 annually, a gap of $97 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, AWF currently yields 6.92% against 1.09% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
AWF and IVV share 0 holdings out of 1212 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, AWF or IVV?
AWF has an expense ratio of 1.00% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $97 per year of difference.
Which performed better, AWF or IVV?
Over the past year AWF returned -2.56% vs +21.64% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (26 years), AWF annualized +0.91% vs +7.04% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, AWF or IVV?
AWF has been the more volatile fund at 18.2% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: AWF -60.0% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both AWF and IVV?
AWF and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.60, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between AWF and IVV?
AWF and IVV share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 1212 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, AWF or IVV?
AWF yields 6.92% while IVV yields 1.09%, so AWF currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.